Are we at war?

When the U.S. goes to war, it takes extraordinary actions. Those actions may come into conflict with the rights of citizens and other residents, but there is an argument that they’re still necessary.

Do you feel like we are at war? If so, with whom, and what’s the evidence? And does that war justify whatever action the Trump Administration wants to take?

Some historical context

On December 7, 1941, Japanese planes attacked and bombed US Naval Ships at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The attack killed 3,500 people. The following day, at President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s urging, the U.S. Congress declared war on Japan and three days later, on Germany and Italy.

Americans knew from that moment forward that they’d be called upon to live their lives differently. And the nation’s leadership took extraordinary actions.

In the spring of the following year, at the order of the president, 120,000 US citizens and residents of Japanese ancestry were rounded up and held in internment camps. This was an unprecedented and controversial action against Americans, many of whom were loyal to the U.S., regardless of their background. But in time of war, American leadership uses the conflict to justify actions against citizens and residents that would be inconceivable in peacetime.

On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four American passenger planes and flew three of them into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, DC. Nearly 3,000 people were killed.

Nine days later, President George W. Bush gave a speech announcing the “war on terror.” There was no formal declaration of war, as there was no nation that could be designated as the enemy, only terrorism. But there were huge consequences, including armed conflicts in Afghanistan, where the terrorists were trained, and Iraq, which was perceived as part of the threat.

The USA Patriot act, passed in October, was cited as authorization for a vast warrantless wiretapping effort aimed at US residents communicating with international actors. In a program called PRISM, the government collaborated with tech companies to sweep up vast amounts of private information about US citizens and residents.

There are two perspectives on actions like these. One is that in a time of war, the government needs to take extraordinary actions for national security, in some cases violating citizens’ rights. Another is that even in wartime, there should be limits on government overreach and that our rights as citizens are what the nation is supposed to be protecting.

But what’s not in question is this: when there is war, the calculation about the rights of citizens is dramatically different.

Consider what is happening now in this context

Imagine for a moment a president who wanted the law enforcement and military arms of his government to be able to take any action it wanted. It would be a lot easier for such a president if the country was at war.

For example, this president might want to blow up ships from nations whose government he feels threatened by — as Donald Trump’s navy has in the Caribbean against ships from Venezuela.

He could send federal troops and law enforcement into American cities in the name of national security. For example, early in the morning of September 30, federal agents with Border Patrol, the FBI, and ATF raided an apartment building in Chicago, supported by Blackhawk helicopters, and detained and ziptied residents, including children. Many were American citizens; some were not. They broke down people’s doors, trashed their apartments, and eventually detained 37 people. There were no warrants.

President Trump recently sent notice to Congress that he “has decided that the United States is engaged in a formal ‘armed conflict’ with drug cartels his team has labeled terrorist organizations and that suspected smugglers for such groups are ‘unlawful combatants,'” according to the New York Times. “Mr. Trump’s move to formally deem his campaign against drug cartels as an active armed conflict means he is cementing his claim to extraordinary wartime powers.”

Trump’s DHS said that the targets in the Chicago raid included members of the infamous Tren de Aragua gang, one of the drug cartels on which Trump has declared war. So all the dots are connected. If we are at war, Trump has extraordinary powers to act without so much care for the rights of civilians, because national security is at stake. He does not have to present evidence. All he needs to do is invoke the name of an enemy.

Except for a few details.

Unlike in Pearl Harbor and 9/11. There has been no huge and deadly attack to galvanize the public behind this war.

No one in the administration has presented any solid evidence of any connection between the boats or the Chicago apartments and Tren de Aragua.

Trump, unlike FDR and George W. Bush, never rallied Congress to pass any laws authorizing his administration to wage war against the targets he is pursuing. And he has done nothing to unite the country against the enemies he perceives as threatening America.

So tell me.

Are we at war? Do you feel threatened by foreign actors as you would have after Pearl Harbor in 1941 or 9/11?

Do you feel like we are in a sufficiently dire situation to threaten the rights of citizens and residents?

Or is it just a pretext so Trump can do whatever he wants with military and federal law enforcement?